If we tested two identical brains seeing red and the brain states were identical, we could infer the experience of seeing red is identical, but we could never verify it. A person could always say, "yeah, but brain A is occupying point X and brain B is occupying point Y, so maybe brain A's experience of red is different than brain B's." How would you prove or disprove that? That's the thing about consciousness: it's only measurable in ourselves. For all I know, you're a bunch of zombies or simulated people. No amount of brain scans or neural correlates can convince me other people are conscious. We just assume it's true because solipsism is kind of horrifying and depressing, at first.

No. By that logic one could do anything to someone without their consent on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always kill themselves.
Plus the option is far from always available.

Assuming suicide is available, the alternative to non-existence is available anytime the victim of consent feels the consent violation outweighs the benefits of existence. There's no analogue to other consent violations, like say rape. Suicide is uncreating yourself, which was the consent violation: creation without consent. The rape victim cannot un-rape herself. She can kill herself, but that doesn't remove the consent violation. It just terminates her existence. Suicide negates the consent violation (assuming the person's existence was, on balance, neither good nor bad).

Now, you can say that there is a harm in even putting someone into a situation where they have to go through the ordeal of suicide. And I would agree that that's a serious harm. However, how do you handle the fact the vast majority of people don't kill themselves and don't want to kill themselves? If you ask most people, they might not be happy with their existence, but they certainly don't want to end it. So how can you do harm to someone who continues to exist yet you brought them into existence without consent? Are you claiming that such people are addicted to existence?

There's another category of people that truly enjoy their life. I got lucky in that my son is one of these people. He's very computer science minded and I explained the argument to him, but he said even if I should have gotten his consent, he's glad I had him. Did I harm him in bringing him into existence without his consent? I think a utilitarian or consequentialist would say no.

Is it wrong to slip someone 5 dollars? Well, normally yes. I mean imagine you wake up and find five dollars on your bedside table. I sneaked in at night and left it there for you. Was that ok? No.

Discovering money on the table would lead to psychology distress, which is a harm. Suppose I add $5 to your bank account, and then change your memory of your account by $5. Was there a harm?

What if I've got a suitcase with 2 million dollars in it . It is heavy and I am on the top of a very tall building. Nevertheless I want to share my wealth and I am in a hurry, so I decide just to throw it off the building and onto the busy street below. I know that it'll injure - possibly very seriously - whomever it strikes. But what the hell - they'll be 2million dollars up on the deal, so they can't complain, right? No, they can complain and throwing the suitcase off was wrong.

There's a harm in that situation. I'm talking about situations where charity is given to someone without their consent and without any harm resulting. Are charitable violations of consent that don't result in harm immoral?

Is the lack of consent offset by the fact that whatever you bring into existence has the option of going back to non-existence (suicide)? Also, if I slip five dollars into someone's pocket without their consent, have I harmed them?

I remember one of my philo professors making that argument years ago. You might be right.

The point of the agony case was to show that it is more important to prevent suffering than it is to preserve a species.

Humans cause vast amounts of suffering. It is more important to prevent that suffering than it is to preserve the species.

And the point of the example of everyone voluntarily deciding not to procreate was to show that a) there is no positive obligation to preserve the species and b) that it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species.

As it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species, and as procreation clearly involves imposing something significant on someone without their consent, it is more important not to procreate than it is to preserve the species.

It is impossible to get the consent of something that does not exist to bring it into existence. That's an impossible burden to meet.

In those cases, the preservation of the species doesn't justify the means. But that's not what we're dealing with. People want to procreate, and kids don't live in agony. Some do, but percentage-wise, it's a very small amount.

good points.

Would any of the anti-having-kids people change their minds if it was discovered that we were the only technologically advanced species in the galaxy? The observable universe (I know that's impossible, but just go with it)?

It depends on whether space-faring creatures would evolve again. If not, all life on Earth will end when the sun gets too hot.

The consequences if everyone stopped having kids would be the death of the species. I'm assuming everyone (most? some?) here would agree that's something we should avoid. Therefore, not everyone should be childless.

Suppose you had a God's-eye view of the mental states of two people. One stationary and the other in an accelerating space ship. How would the two mental states change as the person accelerating gets closer to the speed of light? To an outside observer, would the mental state of the person accelerating start to slow down?

"Guth, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, resorts to freaks of nature to pose this “measure problem.” “In a single universe, cows born with two heads are rarer than cows born with one head,” he said. But in an infinitely branching multiverse, “there are an infinite number of one-headed cows and an infinite number of two-headed cows. What happens to the ratio?”

For years, the inability to calculate ratios of infinite quantities has prevented the multiverse hypothesis from making testable predictions about the properties of this universe. For the hypothesis to mature into a full-fledged theory of physics, the two-headed-cow question demands an answer."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-multiverses-measure-problem-20141103/

Ok that's fair. But if we are speculating, isn't it fair for me to point out some things that need to be considered? If the universe instantiates actual infinity in any way: infinitely many sub-universes, infinitely many distinct times within a finite interval of time like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... infinitely many planets, infinitely many anything ... then we must ask ourselves the question: Does the mathematical theory of infinity apply? If yes, then we must ask if things like the Continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice have now become amenable to physical experiment; and if not, we must then develop a new physical theory of infinity.

My background isn't math, so I can't contribute too much along these lines. The other day, I was reading about proposals to take the infinitely large set of worlds and partition it in some non-arbitrary way so that probabilities can be assigned, but I can't find it now.

I know you weren't thinking of these things, but (in my opinion) the moment one says that there MIGHT be a physical infinity, these questions immediately come to mind. My mind, in any event.

Sure.

My point was about the ramifications if there are infinitely many universes with different physical constants. IF that is the case, the set of universes "everyone is a Boltzmann Brain" is infinite and the set "everyone is a real person" is infinite,
— RogueAI

This I disagree with. Am I allowed? As Jules played by Samuel L. Jackson says in Pulp Fiction: "Allow me to retort!" The set of positive integers exists. Are there as many numbers equal to 47 as not? No. Are there as many numbers that can be exponents in Fermat's equation? No, 2 is the only one, proven as recently as 1994. Are there infinitely many numbers that are part of a prime pair? Unknown. It is most definitely not the case that every possibility occurs infinitely many times. In the multiverse you have no idea what the actual rules are. Truth is you have no way of knowing that there are infinitely many universes that contain Boltzmann brains. Perhaps there's some as-yet-unknown physical constraint that only allows finitely many such. So your speculation is not fully thought out in my opinion.

I concede the point. There might be some fundamental aspect of things that makes a universe of nothing but Boltzmann Brains physically impossible. But that doesn't seem to be the case currently. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing, say, "casino worlds" in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (if you haven't read the book, it's a world where random erosion patterns just happened to have created glittering casinos everywhere).

Excessive pickiness on my part, maybe. Not snark. I'm making a point. I'm disagreeing with your reasoning.

Fair enough.

and they're both countably infinite sets,
— RogueAI

Ah! And you know this, how? This is one of my questions. Let us suppose, arguendo[/ii], that the number of sub-universes in the universe (or universes in the multiverse) is actually infinite. Is it countably infinite or uncountably infinite? Well, you just made an assumption. So if I got you to state one of your unstated assumptions, my objections have not been in vain. And why should the number be countably infinite? And if it's uncountable, what might its cardinality be? Set theorists have some mighty large cardinals these days. So IMO these are the kinds of questions that come immediately to mind whenever someone speculates on physical instantiations of infinity.

This is an assumption, but I think it a fair one. If there are infinite universes, why wouldn't they be countable? But maybe they're not.

After all, if there are even countably many of anything in the physical world, then we can in principle count its number of subsets; and depending on which cardinal number that happens to be, the Continuum hypothesis is therefore amenable to physical experiment. I take it as proof, or at least meta-proof, that physicists don't take infinite universes seriously; else postdocs would be applying for grants to determine the truth of the Continuum hypothesis.

Maybe. I don't know much about the Continuum hypothesis.

Why are you allowed to speculate about the consequences of physical infinity, but not me? Can you see that I am actually trying to join in your game, by making my own speculations about the implications of physical infinity.

That's fine. Your speculations are interesting. I'm going to have to read more about Continuum hypothesis. Infinity is interesting.

so how would you decide which set you're in if you don't know? It's a coin toss, in that situation.
— RogueAI

Without knowledge of the actual probability distribution, that's like guessing it's 50-50 to land alive after jumping off a tall building. Perhaps some configurations of the multiverse are far more likely than others. You're assuming all configurations are distributed uniformly. Isn't that an assumption?

No, I'm not assuming they're equally likely or distributed uniformly. That's not required to generate the dilemma of have to choose between two infinite sets to figure out which one you're in, but like you said, the true odds may be different. For example, if you're jumping off a tall building, there are two sets to consider: the set of universes where you survive and the set where you don't, and obviously your odds of surviving aren't 50/50, so there's something going on there, and yet, at a fundamental level, reality either is as it appears to be (actual laws of nature, not just fantastic coincidences over and over, we're not Boltzmann brains, etc.) or reality isn't as it appears to be. If there are an infinity of universes of each type, and you don't know what kind of universe you're in, how is it anything other than 50/50? You would have to assert some limiting principle where the multiverse just doesn't produce universes where fantastic coincidence isn't the norm, but what on Earth would that mechanism be?

If the multiverse isn't infinite, none of that applies, of course, but philosophy is about speculation, so I'm speculating here.
— RogueAI

So why can't I play too?

So what was the point of the lottery that comes up with the digits of pi? That example went right over my head.

After the first exchange, I thought you were making some errors, and I don't have much of a math background, so I asked a probability question about Pi. Do you know Bayes Theorem well?

Agreed.

Fishfry, my point isn't about whether the multiverse is infinite or not. I'm OK assuming we don't know one way or the other and will likely never know. My point was about the ramifications if there are infinitely many universes with different physical constants. IF that is the case, the set of universes "everyone is a Boltzmann Brain" is infinite and the set "everyone is a real person" is infinite, and they're both countably infinite sets, so how would you decide which set you're in if you don't know? It's a coin toss, in that situation. If the multiverse isn't infinite, none of that applies, of course, but philosophy is about speculation, so I'm speculating here.

ETA:
"And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession...

...The problem with having an infinite multiverse is that if you ask a simple question like, ”If you flip a coin, what’s the probability it will come up heads,“ normally you would say 50 percent. But in the context of the multiverse, the answer is that there’s an infinite number of heads and infinite number of tails. Since there’s no unambiguous way of comparing infinities, there’s no clear way of saying that some types of events are common, and other types of events are rare. That leads to fundamental questions about the meaning of probability. And probability is crucial to physicists because our basic theory is quantum theory, which is based on probabilities, so we had better know what they mean."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/biggest-questions-in-science/the-founder-of-cosmic-inflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/

I don't know. Maybe SA is talking out their ***. They usually don't. But I'm just including this to buttress my tangential point that infinite universes is taken seriously in cosmology.

Fish, if a lottery was being run for the first time, and you were the manager, and the winning ticket's numbers were 314159265359, what would you conclude?

But that just limits you to sets of numbers. Suppose we take the poker example I gave earlier. How many royal flushes does the dealer have to deal himself before you leave the table? Which is to say, how many royal flushes until the probability "dealer cheating" > "chance". That's a tough one to nail down because it's so subjective. Bayes Theorem works great in those kinds of situations.

When physicists use the word infinity they must mean something quite different than what mathematicians mean, else they'd immediately have to ask themselves what is the transfinite cardinality of the set of universes, and whether the universes can be well-ordered, and so forth, or at the very least they'd have to simultaneously note that standard set theory does not apply to their use of the word infinity.

I don't know about any of that. But many cosmologists advocate for a multiverse with infinitely many universes where the values of the physical constants are different.

Since you are speculating that there might be infinitely many universes, why don't you suggest answers to those questions, if only to challenge your own thinking.

What's with the snark? My reply to you in this thread didn't even have a question in it. I was making a bunch of points about infinite universes.

And what is your chain of logic that, " if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm ..." What's the argument that this is so?

The values of the physical constants are different. I'm not talking about a set of identical infinite universes. For example, there would be universes (an infinitely many of them) consisting of nothing but Boltzmann Brains constantly popping into and out of existence.

After all there are infinitely many positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... yet none of them is a purple flying elephant, at least as far as we know. Every positive integer is subject to the Peano axioms. So we already have evidence that your claim is (at least arguably, pending some kind of argument) false.

Purple flying elephants are physically impossible. Picture worlds where people win the lottery 20 times in a row, and people always go into spontaneous cancer remission after they drink from a certain fountain. Erosion patterns constantly spelling out the truths of the natural world, E=MC2. Stuff like that.

Really? Have you got an argument for this?

Yes. Countable infinite sets are equal and there are infinitely many worlds where the laws of nature are real, and where the laws of nature are nothing but descriptions of fantastical coincidences happening over and over again. If you don't know what set you're in, and both sets are equal, it's a 50/50 chance if you're guessing.

But I have already pointed out earlier that we ARE in a world of crazy coincidences. From the big bang to your being here reading this requires a chain of the most unlikely coincidences and accidents. So your statement here is unsupported and vacuous.

Aren't you just the pleasure to talk to.

You know I've seen famous physicist Leonard Susskind talk and write about infinity (two separate instances that I have in mind) where he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Physicists are very imprecise in their notions of infinity.

Possibly.

All sequences are likely, but some are more explainable by chance than others. For example 3478907834617856 is explainable by chance. And what I mean by that is there's no competing theory that does better than "chance" for that string of numbers. However, if the numbers were 12345678901234567890, there is a competing hypothesis that beats the chance hypothesis: human intervention.

You assume human error. I always use the example of joining a poker game, and dealer deals himself a royal flush. Nobody would quit the table. After the second one, some people would leave. After the third one, everyone would be gone. As the odds become longer, outside agency starts to look more and more likely.

Also, if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm, not the exception. And there would be infinitely many such worlds, so the set of "worlds with extreme amounts of fantastical coincidences" would equal the set of "worlds without extreme amounts of fantastical coincidence". If you didn't know which kind of world you're in (and how would you?), there's a 50/50 chance you're in the world of crazy coincidences.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god.

Interesting.

What's the solution? In your own words.

Exactly.

Idealism begs many questions that of course I have no answers to. However, the mind-body problem is more than just a lack of explanation.

I would be OK with a benevolent AI running things. It can hardly do a worse job than humans are doing.

There are no material objects. Idealism neatly solves the mind-body problem.

You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned.

Do you really need me to go over the Sandy Hook shooting to convince you it's not a "false flag" operation? No, you don't. Good day.

My point in bringing up Q-anon is to contrast myself with Trump supporters because you kept claiming I might be ignorant about Q-anon being wrong and Sandy Hook being a false flag (I notice you didn't bring that one up). I'm not. Here are where Trump supporters and objective reality part ways:
- The election was not stolen
- Q-anon is bullshit
- Hillary Clinton is not a murderer
- Climate change is not a hoax
- Obama was an American citizen
- Sandy Hook really happened
- Masks work

And on and on.

So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff.

Let's start with something simple:

Do you think it's possible Trump actually won the election?

So, you're an American and you started a politics thread, and you're saying you don't know about Q-anon?

I don't know even who Q-anon is.

Are you an American?

"That is to say , what you want to call the felt sensation of red is not a stable primitive of experiencing but a bodily mediated interpretation."

Unpack this, please.

""The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong."

If you are coming from the position Q-anon *might* be right, or Sandy Hook *might* have been a false flag operation, the discussion ends here. The moon might be made of green cheese. But it's not, and Q-anon is nonsense.

Do you actually think Q-anon might be right??? Do you actually entertain that as a possibility?

Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"

2016? Probably. 2020? Yes. Now? Without a doubt. I don't see the appeal of the Trump con. I could not get fleeced by him. I think you have to be kind of dumb to fall for his shtick in the first place and really dumb to fall for it twice. My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large.

"Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about, not some nuanced discussion about how much humans are to blame. Those kinds of conservatives haven't lost their minds. I'm talking about the ones who think climate change involves a secret cabal of scientists all fudging numbers to get that sweet sweet grant money. And also, Alex Jones, Qanon, #releasethekraken, #clintonbodycount, etc.

You're trying to make an equivalence where none exists. The problem for Trump supporters is on their end, not mine, and this is objectively true. The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc. I'm also not in a cult.

They may say that about me, but it's not true, and that's the problem- many conservatives have become detached from reality. I, personally, am not enthrall to any political leaders. I don't understand the Trumpian mindset. I've never been slavishly loyal to anyone. I also don't believe in the kooky conspiracy theories they believe. I also am not afraid of "demographic change". So, they may think the same about me, but they are objectively wrong (e.g., climate change is real and is a serious man-made threat). They're the ones that need to come back to reality, and until they do, I would rather avoid them.

The reason politics has become divisive is because the conservative movement (about 80% of it) has lost their minds, has bought in to all this white grievance BS, believes crazy conspiracy theory shit, and is enthrall to a narcissistic sociopath. How can I have common cause with such people? So, I avoid them as much as possible.